Retiree's Life Savings Lost in Beauty Salon Fraud Scheme, Court Hears

Surekha Dulabh invested her pension funds and personal savings, R1.15 million in total, into what she expected would be a functioning nail and beauty salon in Boksburg. That investment is now at the center of a criminal fraud case before the Palm Ridge Commercial Crimes Court, where Jannel Joshi, owner of the Harmony franchise group, faces charges of fraud and attempted extortion.

For Dulabh and the many ordinary South Africans who commit retirement savings to small business opportunities, the case cuts to a basic question: what protection exists when a franchise deal goes wrong?

Additional reference context is available at https://ua.news/en/world/u-par-sud-rozgliadaie-spravu-vlasnitsi-merezhi-saloniv-harmony-za-obvinuvachenniam-u-shakhraistvi-timeslive.

Dulabh paid Joshi a deposit of R800,000 in September of the previous year, with the remaining R350,000 to follow in interest-free monthly instalments once the Harmony Nail and Beauty Wellness Studio opened for business. The salon never reached that point. She says delays accumulated across renovations, staff recruitment and training, marketing, and fitting out the premises. Joshi had allegedly promised completion by November 12. That deadline passed, and Dulabh says she never received the fully equipped establishment she had contracted to purchase.

What followed made matters worse. When Dulabh filed complaints with the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud and the National Consumer Commission, and initiated criminal proceedings alleging fraud and deception, she says Joshi’s legal representatives made an unusual proposal: the salon would be handed over only if Dulabh provided written confirmation that she would withdraw all criminal and consumer complaints. By January, she concluded the franchise agreement had been breached and demanded cancellation and full reimbursement.

Joshi’s legal team rejected that account entirely. Mohsin Sharif, representing Joshi, characterized the delays as stemming from legitimate operational factors, including premises preparation, contractor work, procurement challenges, and specification changes. He denied that Harmony breached the agreement and specifically rejected the claim that handover was made conditional on the withdrawal of complaints. Sharif also stressed that criminal charges do not establish guilt.

The counterclaim from Joshi’s side demands that Dulabh pay the outstanding R350,000 plus interest and legal costs, and asserts the right to take operational control of the salon, which Dulabh says Joshi has been running since January.

The prosecutorial process has given the case new weight. On June 26, Gauteng Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Rendani Ndou reviewed an earlier decision not to prosecute and found sufficient evidence to charge Joshi with fraud. By July 28, he ordered the addition of an attempted extortion charge. That sequence matters: it signals that state authorities, having examined the evidence, considered the public interest sufficient to proceed.

Meanwhile, consumer regulators have moved on a parallel track. The National Consumer Commission completed its review in June and recommended action against Harmony, including full reimbursement to Dulabh, compensation for damages, and a substantial fine. Those materials were referred to the National Consumer Tribunal for determination of remedies. Harmony, for its part, has filed a civil claim against Dulabh for R1.476 million in damages, which Sharif says relates to alleged breaches of the franchise agreement.

The regulatory and criminal processes now running simultaneously reflect how much is at stake beyond this single transaction. Franchise buyers across the country routinely commit life savings, pension payouts, and personal borrowings to business opportunities that carry significant risk and limited transparency. When disputes arise over whether a seller has met their obligations, buyers often face the burden of navigating multiple complaint channels, civil litigation, and criminal proceedings at once, while the business they paid for remains out of reach.

The outcome of this case, both in the criminal court and before the National Consumer Tribunal, will test whether existing frameworks offer meaningful recourse to ordinary buyers in that position, or whether the protections on paper translate into actual relief.